Time for talk about new terror laws

Page Tools

Anti-terror laws drafted in secret and debated for a day
or two? This is not democracy the Australian way.

AUSTRALIANS should be both alert to and alarmed by the Howard
Government's proposed counter-terrorism laws. The laws will give
police and the security agencies unprecedented powers in peacetime
in Australia. They will override some of the essential rights, such
as the prohibition on detention without charge, that distinguish
this country from others with neither democratic traditions nor
safeguards. The laws will also provide for the imprisonment of
those who support insurgents, the detention of juveniles, house
arrest, the wearing of tracking devices, enhanced sedition offences
and will codify shoot-to-kill provisions. The public is aware of
such details only because ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope took the
bold step of breaching confidence and posting a draft of the
legislation on his website last Friday. He and the other state and
territory leaders have already signed off on the legislation. The
Federal Government had not planned to release its bill for another
fortnight.

Leaving aside the substance of the proposed laws, surely there
is something awry with the process. Since when did the substance of
legislation to be put to the Federal Parliament become a state
secret? And since when did changes that affect the fundamental
civil liberties of citizens become a matter to be discussed behind
the closed doors of the Council of Australian Governments? Such
actions are reminiscent of governments of repressive regimes. Not
surprisingly, there has been alarm from some quarters. If, as
expected, legislation is introduced into Parliament on October 31,
this would give the Senate just one week to consider it.
Significantly, the Law Council of Australia has suggested the
proposals, and the "indecent haste" of their implementation, could
lead to Australia becoming a police state.

John Howard's response has been to berate Mr Stanhope for
releasing the bill and point to "plenty of safeguards". Mr Howard
says he is "quite confident" that the laws are necessary "otherwise
I would never have proposed them". The "trust me" defence from any
politician on such an important matter should immediately set alarm
bells ringing. On an issue this fundamental, does Mr Howard really
believe that the Australian people should take his word as
sufficient? The recent experience of asylum seekers, the "children
overboard" controversy and the abandoning of Australian citizen
David Hicks might give pause for thought.

This is not how a democratic government behaves. The Howard
Government has a mandate to govern for three years, not some blank
authorisation to make fundamental changes to the Australian way of
life. There is no question that terrorism poses a significant
threat to Australians and that federal and state governments are
right to take all reasonable measures to halt its spread. But it is
not necessary for the community to be excluded from the debate on
what measures must be employed to protect it. We must have a full
and open discussion on how to protect Australia from the scourge of
terrorism. All Australians have a stake in that discussion and they
have Mr Stanhope to thank for at least providing them with the
opportunity to participate more fully.

Page Tools

SPONSORED LINKS

1129401196031-theage.com.auhttp://www.theage.com.au/news/editorial/time-for-talk-about-new-terror-laws/2005/10/17/1129401196031.htmltheage.com.auThe Age2005-10-18Time for talk about new terror lawsOpinionOpinionEditorial